BlockDAG's current vesting material contains terms every presale buyer should understand.

The project says presale allocations receive a 40% unlock at TGE, with the remainder released linearly over three months. Bonus allocations are treated differently: BlockDAG describes a 12-month cliff before the bonus unlock cycle begins.

Those are not minor technical details.

They determine when an investor can actually control the tokens displayed as belonging to them.

For years, BlockDAG marketing emphasized token quantities, bonuses, price stages and future value. Large bonuses could make a purchase appear dramatically more attractive. But a 100%, 200% or larger bonus means something very different if those tokens cannot be accessed on the same schedule as purchased tokens.

The crucial question is not whether vesting itself is legitimate. Vesting is common in crypto projects.

The question is whether buyers were clearly told the applicable restrictions when they made the purchase.

What did the purchase screen say?

What did the terms say at that time?

Were bonus tokens visibly separated from purchased tokens?

Was the 12-month cliff disclosed before payment?

Did the rules change later?

If they changed, which version governs earlier buyers?

BlockDAG should publish a dated vesting-history page answering those questions.

This matters because investors may have made financial decisions based on a total dashboard balance. If a person saw millions of BDAG and believed those tokens would become available at launch, discovering later that a large bonus portion remains locked for another year can materially change the economic reality.

A project cannot rely on the attractiveness of a bonus when selling and then treat the restrictions attached to that bonus as an afterthought.

The rules need equal prominence.

There is another reason to keep this separate from the buyback dispute.

A vesting schedule controls when tokens can be claimed or transferred under the distribution system. A completed buyback, by contrast, can create a separate payment obligation if the investor transferred eligible tokens under stated terms.

BlockDAG should not mix the two.

If an investor's purchased tokens are vesting, explain the vesting.

If bonus tokens are locked, explain the cliff.

If USDT is due under a buyback, pay the USDT.

Each obligation should stand on its own terms.

Investors can help reconstruct the disclosure history by comparing dated purchase screens and emails. Someone who bought in 2024 may have seen different language from someone who bought in 2025 or 2026. Preserve those differences.

Then ask one question: what vesting rules were presented before each purchase?

That is a fair standard.

BlockDAG says its distribution is now on-chain and transparent. Good. Transparency should extend backward to the terms under which those allocations were sold.

Show investors what they bought.

Show them when it unlocks.

Show them which rules were in effect on their purchase date.

And where a later financial agreement promised something different—such as USDT on a specified payment date—honor that agreement separately.

Complex tokenomics cannot become an excuse for simple obligations going unpaid.

If BlockDAG believes these rules were always clear, it should be able to point investors to the dated terms that existed before each purchase. That is far stronger than asking people in 2026 to rely on a current FAQ for a transaction made years earlier.

Source Record

• BlockDAG Developer Hub
• BlockDAG Mainnet Roadmap
• BlockDAG FAQ
• BlockDAG Dev Release 254 — Vesting Structure
• BlockDAG September 2024 Miner AMA
• BlockDAG Inter Milan Partnership Announcement